AIDS industry

AIDS industry. According to critics, the HIV/AIDS paradigm, is politically, economically and socially driven, rather than based on verifiable scientific data. In fact, the orthodox version of the "AIDS pandemic", has been rife with dissent, corruption and censorship from the onset.

Birth of an industry

Since the first hypothesis by Robert Gallo of the National Institutes of Health at an April 23, 1984 press conference, there has never been any proof that HIV caused AIDS. In fact, Gallo only announced that he had discovered the virus which probably caused AIDS. Others claimed that he had discovered the “AIDS virus” and he never corrected them. Dr. Gallo was joined by Margaret Heckler, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), who promised a “vaccine for AIDS within one year.”

Simultaneously with the press conference was the HHS' denial of grant requests for AIDS research (approving only grant requests for HIV research). This effectively silenced open, objective discourse and peer review. Consequently, there has been no well-funded, empirical research regarding the true cause of AIDS. In spite of this, evidence exists to conclude that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, according to critics of the orthodox HIV/AIDS paradigm. Furthermore, the HIV test is so inaccurate and misleading, it has never made a real connection between HIV and AIDS. [1]

Censoring critics

Peter H. Duesberg, PhD

The leading AIDS dissident scientist since 1987 has been Dr. Peter Duesberg, a tenured professor at Berkeley and member of the National Academies of Science. For over twenty years preceding 1987, he was an esteemed scientist at the NIH. His proposed the “behavior based theory of immune disfunction” in the West; based on recreational and addictive drugs and prescribed AIDS drugs. For the Third World, the factors are starvation and malnutrition; unsanitary living conditions and contaminated drinking water. After his challenge to the the AIDS orthodoxy in 1997, Dr. Duesberg was ridiculed, marginalized and denounced. Years later, other medical practitioners and scientists are realizing the inherent fallacies in the HIV/AIDS paradigm. The most obvious is the lack of scientific documentation. According to Dr. biochemist Kary Mullis, the 1993 Nobel prize for chemistry:

“If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document.” [2]

President Thabo Mbeki (South Africa)

In November of 1999, President Thabo Mbeki publicly questioned the HIV/AIDS paradigm, causing intense domestic debate in South Africa. It was the first challenge to the paradigm that the HIV virus caused Aids. Most people in U.S. and global "markets", were healthy and alive prior to their HIV positive death certificates and died within a year of taking prescribed medications. Like most contrary “AIDS” debates, it was largely ignored or censored by U.S. media. [3], [4]

"AIDS proposal" censured by leading medical journals

The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis was originally a group of signatories of an open letter to the scientific community.[5] When the June 6, 1991 letter was submitted to the editors of Nature, Science, and the New England Journal of Medicine, all refused to publish it. However, the following letter was published in Science on February 17, 1995:

"In 1991, we, the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis, became dissatisfied with the state of the evidence that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) did, in fact, cause AIDS.

Specifically, we have proposed that researchers independent of the HIV establishment should audit the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) records of AIDS cases, bearing in mind that the correlation of HIV with AIDS, upon which the case for HIV causation rests, is itself an artifact of the definition of AIDS. Since 1985, exactly the same diseases or conditions have been defined as "AIDS" when antibodies are present, and as "non-AIDS" when HIV and antibodies are absent. Independent professional groups such as the Society of Actuaries should be invited to nominate members for an independent commission to investigate the following question: How frequently do AIDS-defining diseases (or low T cell counts) occur in the absence of HIV? Until we have a definition of AIDS that is independent of HIV, the supposed correlation of HIV and AIDS is mere tautology.

Other independent researchers should examine the validity of the so-called "AIDS tests," especially when these tests are used in Africa and Southern Asia, to see if they reliably record the presence of antibodies, let alone live and replicating virus. The bottom line is this: the skeptics are eager to see the results of independent scientific testing. Those who uphold the HIV "party line" have so far refused. We object. [6]

CDC definition & "AIDS epidemic"

Another theory blames AIDS on a human herpes virus known as HHV-6. However, because of HHS research grant funding restrictions, the theory, as well as Dr. Roberto Giraldo’s “Stressor Theory,” is unproved. Under the CDC’s own definition, “AIDS” is a combination of approximately 30 previously known diseases, when accompanied by an HIV positive test result. None of these diseases are new, except for the inclusion of the HIV positive result. For example, tuberculosis accompanied by an HIV positive test result is diagnosed as “AIDS”. The definition is true for an addition 29 other "AIDS defining diseases".

During what is referred to as the “AIDS epidemic” or accelerating death rates following the introduction of AZT into the gay community in 1986; the CDC manipulated statistics to inflate the death rates on paper, while AZT did its job. This accelerated public panic while at the same time serving to expand the power and authority of health care “professionals”.

Profitable patent for unreliable test

Robert Gallo patented the HIV Test and has received millions of dollars in royalties since it was introduced in 1984. However, the HIV test is one of the most unreliable medical tests ever used. Dr. Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute in Paris (whose viral samples were proved to have been misappropriated by Robert Gallo to patent his HIV test), publicly acknowledged that HIV alone could not cause AIDS. Dr. Gallo’s fraudulent “discovery” of HIV was uncovered in 1987. Following litigation, he was forced to share HIV test royalties with Dr. Montagnier. Despite this, his test was legally patented. The test, along with the HIV/AIDS paradigm, continues to deceptively indicate disease in healthy individuals and populations.

Civil liberties

The HIV test is now the basis for legislation which infringes on civil liberties and constitutional rights. This includes criminal prosecution for "spreading AIDS"; international travel restrictions; and removal of HIV positive children from parents in order to to enforce toxic drug regimens. [7], [8] See also foster child drug trials.

People take AIDS drugs because they are "HIV-positive". However, HIV tests are highly inaccurate. Most of them are antibody tests, meaning they can cross-react with normal proteins in human blood. There are nearly 70 commonly occurring conditions known to cause these tests to come up as positive. They include include yeast infections, colds, flus, arthritis, hepatitis, herpes, recent inoculations, drug use and pregnancy. The remaining HIV tests, called viral load tests, can produce dozens of conflicting results, even from the same blood sample. In fact, HIV tests are so unreliable that they all bear disclaimers such as:

"At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood."

"The AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR (Viral Load) test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection."

"Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV-1 infection" [9]

Contagious virus paradigm

Leading researcher Dr. David Rasnick refers to the contagious HIV/AIDS hypothesis as "the biggest scientific, medical blunder of the 20th Century." According to Dr. Rasnick, the "evidence is overwhelming that AIDS is not contagious, sexually transmitted, or caused by HIV":

"There are more than 100 thousand doctors and scientists who have built their careers and reputations by simply accepting the articles of faith about AIDS. ...it is simple human embarrassment that is the biggest obstacle to bringing the AIDS insanity to an end. It is the fear of being so obviously and hopelessly wrong about AIDS that keeps lips sealed, the money flowing and AIDS rhetoric spiraling to stratospheric heights of absurdity.

We are taught to fear antibodies, and to believe that antibodies to HIV are a harbinger of disease and death ten years in the future. When you protest this absurdity and point out to health care workers that antibodies are the very essence of anti-viral immunity your objections are met with either contempt or embarrassed silence."

The NIH, the CDC, the Medical Research Council of South Africa and the World Health Organization (WHO), terrorize hundreds of millions world wide with reckless and absurd policies of equating sex with death. Institutions are compelled to maintain and compound irrational policies due to self interests and preservation. [13]

AZT

AZT was first prescribed to gay men in 1986 as an “antiviral” or “antiretroviral” therapy. As people had been led to believe that they were "infected" with an "immunodeficiency virus", it made sense to combat this “viral” infection. However, around 1990, Harvard trained John Lauritsen’s AZT: Poison by Prescription, exposed AZT as lethal chemotherapy. He also exposed the fraudulent Phase 2 AZT trials, which implicated the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in its promotion of lethal AZT. AZT has been proven to actually cause the condition which has been defined by the CDC as AIDS. [14]

If “HIV infection” purportedly causes immune deficiency, why would our government allow a dangerous drug like AZT, which causes immune system destruction and eventual death, to be prescribed? However, according to orthodox “AIDS” scientists and physicians, early doses of AZT were just "too strong". Protease inhibitors are also chemotherapy drugs which cause chronic illness leading ultimately to death. Yet, these immune system, cell killing chemotherapy drugs are immediately prescribed to “high risk” groups like gay men and IV drug abusers. In many instances, the individuals were asymtomatic and healthy when they began their chemotherapy treatment at the advice or even prodding of their health care providers.

AIDS or AZT?

Many poor, black drug abusing females and their infants were prescribed AZT. Prisoners that test “HIV positive” are administered AZT without informed consent. There is an “Underground Railroad” in America which assists parents fleeing from government health departments attempting to take custody of HIV positive tested minors from parents who do not adhere to mandatory drugging. Children are taken into custody and administered AZT and other lethal chemotherapies by the state. The side effects or "adverse reactions" of AZT and all “AIDS” drugs known as protease inhibitors, are far more debilitating and potentially fatal, than the actual disease. This is evidenced best by the fact that HIV positive “long term survivors”, are individuals who did not take their medications.

To scare people into thinking that they could die from having “unsafe sex” does not conform to what is known. Encouraging drug abuse by providing “clean needles” encourages physical deterioration, while perpetuating the contagious “HIV=AIDS” paradigm. Medical intervention is logically and easily commenced since drug usage may cause an increase in antibodies and an HIV positive test result. [15]

AIDS industry drugs (antivirals)

Drugs used to treat HIV and AIDS are various classes of toxic chemotherapies known as "antivirals" or "antiretrovirals".

AZT (Retrovir)

AZT was developed in 1964 in a cancer research lab. It is a chemotherapy drug used to kill the cells that make up living tissue and blood. It works by disrupting cellular replication at the genetic level. DNA is comprised of four bases that combining in pairs. The pairs line up and spiral into a double helix. AZT stops the spiral, breaks the chain and kills the cell. Considered too dangerous even for short term use, AZT was shelved and a patent was never filed. However, over 20 years later in 1986, Burroughs Wellcome (now GlaxoSmithKline) recycled AZT into an AIDS drug. Testing labs it in a package bearing a skull and crossbones on a bright orange background with a "TOXIC" label and warnings against swallowing, inhaling and skin contact. Today, GSK sells AZT under the brand name "Retrovir" and as an ingredient in "Combivir" and "Trizivir." According to the warning label:

"Retrovir (AZT) has been associated with Hematologic Toxicity (blood toxicity), including Neutropenia (loss of neurophils, an essential component of blood) and Severe Anemia (potentially fatal lack of blood production). Prolonged use of Retrovir has been associated with Symptomatic Myopathy (muscle wasting), Lactic Acidosis and Severe Hepatomegaly (liver swelling) with Steatosis (fat degeneration). Fatal Cases have been reported with the use of Nucleoside Analogues (AZT, 3TC, ddl, D4T) alone or in combination, including Retrovir and other Antiretrovirals."

Worse yet, AZT doesn't even claim to work:

"Retrovir is not a cure for HIV infection ...The long-term effects of Retrovir are unknown at this time ...The long-term consequences of in utero and infant exposure to Retrovir are unknown, including the possible risk of cancer."

Drugs containing AZT as an ingredient accounted for about one billion British pounds (over 1. 5 billion dollars) in GSK's 2002 sales alone. Other nucleoside analogues provided another 470 million pounds (750 million dollars) in sales. In 1986, AZT was rushed through its FDA approval trials in record speed. Overseen and funded by Burroughs Wellcome (now GSK), the trials were marred by false reporting and a total breakdown of study controls. Nevertheless, the drug was released to the market. Subsequent, independent AZT studies revealed the obvious deadly nature of the drug. In English, Australian, and Dutch studies, AZT patients developed severe anemia, requiring multiple blood transfusions just to stay alive. In the Dutch study, three-quarters of the AZT patients died.

AZT has been given to hundreds of thousands of gay men in the US who tested HIV-positive, whether they were sick or not. U.S. deaths attributed to AIDS increased by thousands annually after the mass introduction of AZT in 1987, from 11,000 in 1986 to nearly 50,000 in 1994, the height of AZT use. Sharp criticism of AZT began appearing in the press. Patients and physicians complained openly and cut doses or discontinued it. Subsequently, the death rate declined (prior to the introduction of protease inhibitors, which the industry likes to credit.)[16]

Nevirapine (Viramune)

Nevirapine is marketed under the brand name "Viramune" by German based drug giant Boehringer Ingelheim. Nevirapine functions similarly to AZT in that it interferes with the essential movement of genetic information in the cell. It blocks an enzyme which translates RNA into DNA. One alarming side effect of this drug is called Steven-Johnson Syndrome, which causes the skin to literally come off of the body. In pathetic images of the unfortunate sufferers, hands, abdomens, faces, and mouths are bursting with blood and flesh comes off like old paint steamed off a wall. According to its warning label:

"Severe, life-threatening skin reactions, including fatal cases, have occurred in patients treated with Viramune [Nevirapine]. These have included cases of Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and hypersensitivity reactions characterized by rash, constitutional findings, and organ dysfunction. Patients developing signs or symptoms of severe skin reactions or hypersensitivity reactions must discontinue Viramune as soon as possible."

"Severe, life-threatening and in some cases fatal hepatoxicity (liver damage), including hepatic necrosis (liver death) and hepatic failure, has been reported in patients treated with Viramune."[17]

Nucleoside analogues & protease inhibitors

Standard AIDS drugs are nucleoside analogues, protease inhibitors and Nevirapine. Nucleoside analogues, like AZT, work by stopping cell division. They stop the formation of new blood in the bone marrow, in some cases causing anemia and bone marrow death. They've caused death in pregnant mothers, spontaneous abortion, birth defects, liver failure, pancreatic failure, muscle wasting, developmental damage and death in children and adults. They also may cause cancer. Protease inhibitors interfere with the body's ability to build new proteins. Since we're made of protein, protease inhibitors have pronounced effects on physical appearance and organ function. The side effects can be bizarre, grotesque and often fatal: wasting in the face, arms and legs, fatty humps on the back and shoulders, distended belly, heart disease, birth defects, organ failure and death.

Summary of side effects & inefficacy

Almost all of this is found on warning labels. The first AIDS drug, AZT, was designed in the 60s as a chemotherapy drug for cancer patients, but never approved. Critics declared it too toxic even for short-term use. Yet, in 1987 it was pushed through for lifelong use in HIV-positive people. Although the trials were later revealed to be fraudulent, AZT remains on the market. Finally, there's Nevirapine, which also interferes with normal cell function. In test trials, it caused severe liver damage and death in dozens of patients. Most die from organ failure due to drug toxicity. Nevirapine can also cause a violent skin disorder called Steven-Johnsons Syndrome (SJS), a horrifying condition in which the skin blisters and ruptures or peels off in large swaths, leaving bloody, exposed flesh. Nevirapine is the main drug distributed in Africa for pregnant women who test HIV positive. In spite of serious medical issues, AIDS drugs don't even claim to work. Every AIDS drug label bears a version of this caveat:

"This drug will not cure your HIV infection. Patients receiving antiretroviral therapy may continue to experience opportunistic infections and other complications of HIV disease. Patients should be advised that the long-term effects are unknown at this time." [18]

Clinical trials

African drug trial cover-up

In December of 2004, Dr. Edmund Tramont, head of the NIH AIDS division, was outed by fellow NIH AIDS researcher Dr. Jonathan Fishbein for burying evidence of drug toxicity in an African drug trial. Documents obtained by the Associated Press (AP) revealed that Dr. Tramont censored thousands of toxic reactions and at least 14 deaths in the ongoing Nevirapine study in Uganda. South African President Thabo Mbeki accused the U.S. of using Africans as “guinea pigs”. Rev. Jesse Jackson called the cover up "an outrage.” The media seized on story, but Nevirapine was known in 2000 when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) added a black-box label due to the drug’s ability to cause fatal liver damage and bloody rupturing of skin and flesh (Steven-Johnson Syndrome). Boehringer Ingelheim originally slotted the drug for pregnant HIV-positive women in the U.S. However, Nevirapine’s toxicities were so great they pulled it out of the FDA approval process. Then,

"they did what all AIDS drug manufacturers do with their garbage – dump it into the gay, Black or foreign market and tell the soft-headed liberal media that it’s an “antiretroviral” that will stop AIDS."

The Ugandan study Tramont helped bury was overseen by Dr. Laura Guay, a U.S. doctor from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Under Dr. Guay, the drug was approved for overseas. "How does a drug that kills Americans save Africans?" South African lawyer and journalist Anthony Brink scrutinized the study and approval process in his 2002 online publication, “The Trouble with Nevirapine.” His work on AZT was also widely read by South African leadership, and prompted President Thabo Mbeki’s early criticism of AIDS drugs. Dr. Fishbein tracked down Brink, whose Nevirapine study he described as “an expertly written piece about this very dangerous drug.”[19] See also The Trouble with Nevirpine. [20]

Toxic drug trials on foster children

Animal testing

Invasive procedures & isolation

In this video, (right) a technician brutally handles monkeys using a "pole and collar transfer technique" to force monkeys into restraint chairs. [21]

For infectious disease research, primates are infected and the disease is allowed to progress into symptoms which may include severe diarrhea, dehydration, wasting and anorexia. In some cases, they receive no medical intervention. They are also subjected to a wide variety of painful, invasive procedures which may include long term restraint (sometimes for days), multiple surgeries, food and water deprivation, lethal dosing, irradiation, blood and tissue sampling. For some procedures, the animals must be literally wrestled out of their cages. The majority of research conducted on nonhuman primates is invasive. [22] Due to the nature of certain types of research, such as infectious diseases; primates are often housed in isolation (single housing). In a survey of 22 institutions housing approximately 36,000 primates; 73% were socially housed, compared to only 46% being used in research protocols. Single housing has been shown to lead to depression, withdrawal, frustration, self-mutilation, rocking and other psychotic behaviors. [23]

Although the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) calls for a "physical environment adequate to promote the psychological well-being of primates", [24] standards are vague and simply require research and other institutions to "develop, document, and follow an appropriate plan for environment enhancement adequate to promote the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates", to address social grouping and "enrichment." (This might include perches, objects that promote feeding/foraging, swings, etc.) Also "special considerations" to the needs of infants/juveniles; great apes weighing over 110 pounds; those showing psychological distress and those in "restricted activity." However, since Congress mandated that psychological needs of laboratory primates be addressed over 20 years ago, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has continually failed this (and other) AWA requirements; however minimal. Instead, the USDA largely relies on laboratories to "self regulate". [25] See also USDA.

Inefficacy & criticism of primate "models"

In spite of their ineffectiveness as models for human diseases like HIV, chimpanzees continue to be subjected to painful and invasive experiments; some for over 40 years. The vast majority of laboratory chimps are not being used, while their care is financed by tax dollars. [26] Many of the chimpanzee's bred during the 80's for AIDS research account for the chimpanzee “surplus." Scientists ultimately learned that chimps do not contract AIDS from HIV infection. Instead, they typically shed the virus in time. Yet, those still pushing for their use have gone to great and invasive lengths (quite outside of the normal progression) to force HIV infections in primates. Chimpanzees have proven to be a failed and dangerous model for heart and cancer research as well. In August of 2008, Dr. Jarrod Bailey presented his work on AIDS research and his previous study Chimpanzee Research at the International Primatological Society Congress in Edinburgh, Scotland. [27] See also The Case to End Chimpanzee Research: Scientific Publications. [28] See also War on Cancer.

The European Union (EU) has long considered a ban on the use of wild-caught primates and great apes. It has been widely accepted that the chimpanzee model for HIV was a failure as infected chimpanzees do not develop AIDS. [29] As scientists began steering away from the chimpanzee model, they turned their attention to monkeys. However, after years of pursuit and tens of millions of dollars, the failures of the monkey models are increasingly evident as well; with AIDS patient advocacy groups calling for an end to funding this type of research. Over 85 vaccines have failed human clinical trials, with some actually increasing the likely hood of HIV infection. [30], [31]

Although readily acknowledged that the same "viral infections" that pose a "health risk" to humans are "seemingly harmless" in primates, Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research (SFBR) researchers like Drs. Jonathan Allan, Luis Giavedoni and Krishna Murthy continue to infect chimps and other primates; using millions annually in taxpayer funded "research". [32] On September 8, 2010, the EU voted in favor of a ban on the use of great apes, as part of drastically tightened rules to scale back the number of animals used in scientific research. [33] See also SFBR.